linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH+comment] fix tmpfs BUG and AOP_WRITEPAGE

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:24:22 +0300
From:	"Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To:	"Hugh Dickins" <hugh@...itas.com>
Cc:	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, ezk@...sunysb.edu,
	ryan@...nie.org, mhalcrow@...ibm.com, cjwatson@...ntu.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH+comment] fix tmpfs BUG and AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE

Hi Hugh,

On 10/25/07, Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com> wrote:
> With unionfs also fixed, we don't know of an absolute need for this
> patch (and so, on that basis, the !wbc->for_reclaim case could indeed
> be removed very soon); but as I see it, the unionfs case has shown
> that it's time to future-proof this code against whatever stacking
> filesystems come along.

Heh, what can I say, after several readings, I still find your above
explanation (which I totally agree with) more to the point than the
actual comment :-).

In any case, the patch looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>

                                  Pekka
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/